The U.S. Supreme Court has once again rebuked the state of Colorado, striking down a law that banned conversion therapy for minors on First Amendment grounds. The ruling in Chiles v. Salazar marks the latest in a series of high-profile losses for the state, cementing a pattern where Colorado’s attempts to regulate speech and religious expression in culture-war disputes have been systematically overturned by the high court.
In a decisive 8-1 ruling, the justices found that Colorado’s ban—signed into law in 2019 by Democratic Governor Jared Polis—discriminated based on the viewpoint of the speaker. The law specifically restricted talk therapy when it aimed to prevent minors from embracing being transgender or gay, a move the court determined violated the constitutional protections of free speech.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized the suppression of speech on such a basis as an “‘egregious’ assault” on the Constitution. Gorsuch emphasized that the First Amendment serves as a “shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
Kaley Chiles, plaintiff in Chiles v. Salazar (Alliance Defending Freedom press release) (Alliance Defending Freedom, press release)
The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed faith-based counselor in Colorado Springs. Chiles argued that her practice helped youth achieve their own stated goals, which could include seeking guidance on gender identity and sexuality. Colorado countered that the state was regulating professional conduct to protect minors from counseling it deemed harmful. However, the court found that the state’s focus on the intent of the therapy created an unconstitutional viewpoint restriction.
A growing pattern of Colorado First Amendment Supreme Court cases
The loss in Chiles v. Salazar is not an isolated incident but the latest in a trio of significant reversals involving religious liberty and free speech. For several years, Colorado has been a primary testing ground for the limits of state anti-discrimination laws when they clash with the First Amendment.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the state could not use its Anti-Discrimination Act to compel a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court held that the government cannot force a citizen to create expressive content that conveys a message they disagree with.
This followed a more narrow 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that instance, the court sided with baker Jack Phillips, not necessarily on the broad merits of the free speech claim, but because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had displayed “unconstitutional hostility” toward Phillips’ religious beliefs during the administrative process.
Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop in Lakewood, Colo., Aug. 15, 2018. (Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
| Case | Primary Issue | Outcome | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chiles v. Salazar | Conversion Therapy Ban | Overturned | Viewpoint Discrimination |
| 303 Creative v. Elenis | Wedding Website Design | Overturned | Compelled Speech |
| Masterpiece Cakeshop | Religious Liberty/Baking | Overturned | Religious Hostility |
| Trump v. Anderson | Ballot Eligibility | Overturned | Lack of State Authority |
Broader legal implications and political friction
The frequency of these losses has led conservative legal experts to argue that Colorado is attempting to enforce a specific ideological orthodoxy. Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, stated that the Supreme Court has had to repeatedly remind the state that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and religion, even when the state disagrees with a person’s opinions.
Jim Campbell, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Chiles, suggested that the state has shown an “utter disregard” for the First Amendment rights of its citizens, arguing that the pattern of litigation is not coincidental.
Beyond First Amendment disputes, Colorado has similarly faced rebukes in high-stakes electoral law. In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. The justices found that the state lacked the authority to remove a federal candidate under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
This legal volatility has sparked political movements within the state. Terry Schilling, president of American Principles, has noted that these battles reflect a larger “war against reality,” stating that his organization is now appealing directly to voters through ballot initiatives to protect families and professionals from what he describes as extremist Democratic policies.
What So for the future of state laws
The trend suggests a tightening of the Supreme Court’s scrutiny regarding “viewpoint discrimination.” For states attempting to balance anti-discrimination protections with individual liberties, the Chiles and 303 Creative rulings indicate that the court is increasingly unwilling to allow state laws to compel speech or prohibit professional services based on the speaker’s ideological or religious perspective.
As Colorado continues to navigate these legal boundaries, the focus shifts to the state legislature. We find ongoing efforts within the Colorado House to address the fallout of the conversion therapy ruling, though any new legislation will likely face immediate challenges under the precedents established by Justice Gorsuch and the current court majority.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The next significant checkpoint will be the filing of any petitions for rehearing or the introduction of revised legislation in the Colorado General Assembly to address the Chiles ruling. We will continue to monitor court filings for updates.
Do you think the Supreme Court is correctly balancing state laws with First Amendment rights? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
